Monday, November 20, 2006

"Pharisaical nominalism..."


Thanks to Fr Tim Finigan

Chris Ferrara on pro multis:
The development is also important for the traditionalist cause because it demonstrates that traditionalist opposition to this erring novelty was not “private judgment,” as neo-Catholic spokesmen insisted in their Pharisaical nominalism, but a mere observation of what is self-evident: that “for many” cannot mean “for all,” and that the Church has never sanctioned such an idea concerning the fruit of the Mass. Likewise, as this development certainly highlights, the rest of the traditionalist position is nothing but a systematic statement of the obvious about recent changes in the Church. Just as it is obvious that “for all” is a mistranslation, so is it obvious that the traditional Mass was never prohibited by any papal command—a fact the Vatican itself now openly acknowledges, despite decades of neo-Catholic advice to the contrary. Also obvious is that “ecumenism” is a pastoral program that can be abandoned as a failure, not an irrevocable doctrine of the faith—a fact that one can hope will soon enough be recognized as well by the Vatican...
Here.

1 comment:

John said...

I never liked "ecumenism" from the first. I felt that it was a betrayal of all that my religion stood for. I went along to meetings out of a sense of "this is what I should be doing" but my heart was never in any of them. I even upset some of my hosts at these meetings by claiming that the only true church is the Catholic Church.
I come from a tradition of open May Devotions round the streets and Catholic mens' processions to places of pilgrimage through the streets. Processions which lasted for miles!
I can even see them now, in my mind's eye. We were so proud to be Catholics!
JARay